I remember an old psychological test where you were presented with a scenario where a member of your family is sick and while there exists a drug that can cure them, you cannot afford it. You're given the option to break into the local pharmacy and steal the drug- and asked whether you would do it. The way you answer the question is an indication of your moral development stage. If I remember correctly, the idea is that the most morally developed individuals will decide that stealing the drug is not moral, that if everyone stole what they needed without regard to the interests of the original proprietor, there would be anarchy and society would collapse. So on the whole, the moral decision is to not steal the drug, even when your relative needs it.
Well, if society allows a life-saving drug (or, indeed, a blindness-curing treatment) to be unaffordable to those who need it, then that's already a society that is not serving its members' interests. What the hell do I care if society can support science advanced enough that it can cure blindness, if it won't cure my blindness? I'm expected to do the moral thing and sit nicely and not rock the boat- but others are not expected to help me, in my need? Bugger that for a game of soldiers!
A society that leaves people blind when it can cure them is just as useless as one that burns. So let it burn.
I'd steal that drug in a heartbeat.
Oh btw- in another article about this miracle cure, I read the ridiculous claim that blindness will cost a person about $1million in their lifetime, so the $850k price tag is justified. I don't see this claim in this article, but it just goes to show what some may consider "fairness": "blindness robbed you of $1million, now we're gonna take another".